PER CURIAM: Robert Phipps appeals his murder
conviction and sentence. He contends the trial court erred in denying his
motion to dismiss and in excluding testimony regarding an anonymous tip. We
affirm pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to whether the
trial court erred in denying Phipps's motion to dismiss: State v. Cheeseboro, 346 S.C. 526, 538-39, 552 S.E.2d 300, 307 (2001) (requiring a
defendant seeking dismissal based on loss of evidence prove either (1) the
State destroyed the evidence in bad faith or (2) the evidence possessed an
exculpatory value apparent before the evidence was destroyed and the defendant
cannot obtain other evidence of comparable value by other means).

2. As to whether the
trial court erred in excluding testimony regarding an anonymous tip: Rule 804(b)(2), SCRE (providing that, in order for
statement made under belief of impending death to qualify for exception to rule
excluding hearsay, declarant must have made statement while believing his death
was imminent); Rule 804(b)(3), SCRE (providing that, in order for statement
against interest to qualify for exception to rule excluding hearsay, statement
must have so far tended to subject declarant to criminal liability that no
reasonable person in declarant's position would have made statement unless he
believed it was true); State v. Kinloch, 338 S.C. 385, 389, 526 S.E.2d
705, 707 (2000) (holding statement tending to expose declarant to criminal
liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless
corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the statement was actually made); State
v. Burgess, 391 S.C. 15, 22, 703 S.E.2d 512, 516 (Ct. App. 2010) (holding defendant's
right to present complete defense was not violated when the trial court
correctly excluded evidence under valid evidence rule).